[SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Jeff Waugh]

> But a lot of people, including a good portion of Linux users (maybe even
> most) have no idea what Open Source means other some vague notion that it
> can be $free to acquire and comes with source code. This can include not
> Open Source software such as QMail, Windows, or Pine.

Here's a question I've been asking a lot of people recently. Which do you
care *more* about:

  a) An alternative to Windows

  b) Access to source code

  c) The ideal of continuing software freedom

Discuss. ;-)

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/
 
   "Socks for the foot menu!" - Liam Quin
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[DE LUCA Ben]

B.

> From: Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:36:51 +1100
> To: SLUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives
> 
> 
> 
>> But a lot of people, including a good portion of Linux users (maybe even
>> most) have no idea what Open Source means other some vague notion that it
>> can be $free to acquire and comes with source code. This can include not
>> Open Source software such as QMail, Windows, or Pine.
> 
> Here's a question I've been asking a lot of people recently. Which do you
> care *more* about:
> 
> a) An alternative to Windows
> 
> b) Access to source code
> 
> c) The ideal of continuing software freedom
> 
> Discuss. ;-)
> 
> - Jeff
> 
> -- 
> linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/
> 
>  "Socks for the foot menu!" - Liam Quin
> -- 
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
> More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
> 

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 16:36:51 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>> But a lot of people, including a good portion of Linux users (maybe even
>> most) have no idea what Open Source means other some vague notion that it
>> can be $free to acquire and comes with source code. This can include not
>> Open Source software such as QMail, Windows, or Pine.
>
>Here's a question I've been asking a lot of people recently. Which do you
>care *more* about:
>
>  a) An alternative to Windows

Well there is more to free software than an operating system. There
is plenty of free software for Windows.

But proprietary software isn't all bad.

>  b) Access to source code

This is it for me.

Of course proprietary software can also have source code
availability.

>  c) The ideal of continuing software freedom

Don't really care that much. I much prefer the BSD style license that
provides *real* freedom.

OK, i guess I do care, it just depends on what you call "software
freedom".  I don't think `all code must be free'. I do believe freedom
in as far as you can code whatever you want and release it under
whatever license you want.


d) Free as in beer

Yes.

>Discuss. ;-)

s/discuss/troll/ ? :)
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Michael Lake]

Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
>>But a lot of people, including a good portion of Linux users (maybe even
>>most) have no idea what Open Source means other some vague notion that it
>>can be $free to acquire and comes with source code. This can include not
>>Open Source software such as QMail, Windows, or Pine.
> 
> 
> Here's a question I've been asking a lot of people recently. Which do you
> care *more* about:
> 
>   a) An alternative to Windows
> 
>   b) Access to source code
> 
>   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom

I choose C

Access to source code may be of little use if it is subjected to 
restrictions on *how* it is used. Acess to source alone does not make 
one 'free' in th sense of being in control of how you can use, enhance 
or derive from that software.

The ideal of continuing software freedom rides on access to source code 
and so I think that B is a nessessary condition to realise C and 
implicit in the ideal.

Therefore I choose C

Mike
-- 
Mike Lake
Caver, Linux enthusiast and interested in anything technical.



UTS CRICOS Provider Code:  00099F

DISCLAIMER

This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views the University of
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.


-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Jeff Waugh]

>   a) An alternative to Windows
> 
>   b) Access to source code

b2) Ability to freely read, modify and distribute source (+ binaries)

>   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom

(Just adding that one in.)

- Jeff

-- 
Come to gnome.conf.au 2004!   http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/2004/gnome.conf.au/
 
   I don't know whose brain child it was, but it was quite an ugly child.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 16:57:02 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>>   a) An alternative to Windows
>> 
>>   b) Access to source code

Just to clarify my choice is b) not b2) I care *more* about reading code
to find bugs, and being able to make my own modifications, but care less
about distribution of any changes. (This is a matter of degrees of 
course, the other is nice too, but not as important imho)

>b2) Ability to freely read, modify and distribute source (+ binaries)
>
>>   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom
>
>(Just adding that one in.)
>
>- Jeff
>
>-- 
>Come to gnome.conf.au 2004!   http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/2004/gnome.conf.au/
> 
>   I don't know whose brain child it was, but it was quite an ugly child.
>-- 
>SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
>More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Alan L Tyree]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 16:36, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
> > But a lot of people, including a good portion of Linux users (maybe even
> > most) have no idea what Open Source means other some vague notion that it
> > can be $free to acquire and comes with source code. This can include not
> > Open Source software such as QMail, Windows, or Pine.
> 
> Here's a question I've been asking a lot of people recently. Which do you
> care *more* about:
> 
>   a) An alternative to Windows
> 
>   b) Access to source code
> 
>   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom
> 
> Discuss. ;-)
In the context of the ACT initiative (which is, I think, where this
started):

d) open standards for the storage of public documents


> 
> - Jeff
> 
> -- 
> linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/
>  
>"Socks for the foot menu!" - Liam Quin
> -- 
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
> More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
> 
-- 
--
Alan L Tyree
http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel: +61 2 4782 2670
Mobile: +61 405 084 990
Fax: +61 2 4782 7092
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Eddie F]

B2/C... Coz it makes it possible for good quality, free (as in beer) 
software to be available I guess that's B3... or is it C2?... Anyway, 
all of what makes it possible for good quality, free (a$ in beer) software!

C... When wearing my 'ideal world' hat.

Edd.
~~~   I’m online, therefore I am!   ~~~
Original Message Follows
From: Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: SLUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:57:02 +1100


>   a) An alternative to Windows
>
>   b) Access to source code
b2) Ability to freely read, modify and distribute source (+ binaries)

>   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom

(Just adding that one in.)

- Jeff

--
Come to gnome.conf.au 2004!   http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/2004/gnome.conf.au/
   I don't know whose brain child it was, but it was quite an ugly child.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
_
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to  
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp

--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Felix Sheldon]

Jeff Waugh wrote:



 

But a lot of people, including a good portion of Linux users (maybe even
most) have no idea what Open Source means other some vague notion that it
can be $free to acquire and comes with source code. This can include not
Open Source software such as QMail, Windows, or Pine.
   

Here's a question I've been asking a lot of people recently. Which do you
care *more* about:
 a) An alternative to Windows

 b) Access to source code

 c) The ideal of continuing software freedom

Discuss. ;-)
 

There have always been plenty of alternatives to Windows, and there 
still are, just not all OSS, so I think it's more important to have an 
Open Source/Free software OS for whatever the cheap hardware of the day is.

If there had been a huge free software movement based on software for 
OS/2 or BeOS or AmigaOS (well, there was, kind of..), it would be 
practically dead today, thanks to the companies that owned the 
copyrights on the OS. Even if we could have read the source code for 
these OSes, it would still be dead without the right to reuse it. (I 
wonder if IBM ever thought about open-sourcing OS/2?)

So, I don't think you can ever really have c without b or a (where 
Windows == proprietary OSes).

Felix



--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Jeff Waugh]

> In the context of the ACT initiative (which is, I think, where this
> started):
> 
> d) open standards for the storage of public documents

Yeah, this is a valid point (but it applies to formats, protocols and other
things), and you can provide this with proprietary or Free software. I was
mainly interested in finding out SLUG's current perspectives on software
freedom. It seems to have changed somewhat.

- Jeff

-- 
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norwayhttp://2004.guadec.org/
 
   The implementation of any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from pr0n.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 16:57, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
> >   a) An alternative to Windows
> > 
> >   b) Access to source code
> 
> b2) Ability to freely read, modify and distribute source (+ binaries)
> 
> >   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom
> 
> (Just adding that one in.)

what do you see as the delta from b2 to c ?

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 17:01, Benno wrote:
> >>   b) Access to source code
> 
> Just to clarify my choice is b) not b2) I care *more* about reading code
> to find bugs, and being able to make my own modifications, but care less
> about distribution of any changes. (This is a matter of degrees of 
> course, the other is nice too, but not as important imho)

Windows shared source:
read - tick
make (and implicitly use) your own changes - no tick.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 17:19, Felix Sheldon wrote:
> There have always been plenty of alternatives to Windows, and there 
> still are, just not all OSS, so I think it's more important to have an 
> Open Source/Free software OS for whatever the cheap hardware of the day is.
> 
> If there had been a huge free software movement based on software for 
> OS/2 or BeOS or AmigaOS (well, there was, kind of..), it would be 
> practically dead today, thanks to the companies that owned the 
> copyrights on the OS. Even if we could have read the source code for 
> these OSes, it would still be dead without the right to reuse it. (I 
> wonder if IBM ever thought about open-sourcing OS/2?)

Commodore published /very/ comprehensive internals for the Amiga. With
the right to use (on the Amiga)

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 16:36, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>   a) An alternative to Windows

Shrug.

>   b) Access to source code

Not enough.

>   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom

A must. Open source doesn't cut it, I'm a full share-and-share alike
kinda guy.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 18:08:40 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 17:01, Benno wrote:
>> >>   b) Access to source code
>> 
>> Just to clarify my choice is b) not b2) I care *more* about reading code
>> to find bugs, and being able to make my own modifications, but care less
>> about distribution of any changes. (This is a matter of degrees of 
>> course, the other is nice too, but not as important imho)
>
>Windows shared source:
>read - tick
>make (and implicitly use) your own changes - no tick.
>

Don't underestimate the usefulness of being able to read
source code.

Of course if you had proper documentation and no bugs
it would be a non-issue.

Benno
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Felix Sheldon]

Robert Collins wrote:

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 17:19, Felix Sheldon wrote:
 

There have always been plenty of alternatives to Windows, and there 
still are, just not all OSS, so I think it's more important to have an 
Open Source/Free software OS for whatever the cheap hardware of the day is.

If there had been a huge free software movement based on software for 
OS/2 or BeOS or AmigaOS (well, there was, kind of..), it would be 
practically dead today, thanks to the companies that owned the 
copyrights on the OS. Even if we could have read the source code for 
these OSes, it would still be dead without the right to reuse it. (I 
wonder if IBM ever thought about open-sourcing OS/2?)
   

Commodore published /very/ comprehensive internals for the Amiga. With
the right to use (on the Amiga)
 

Yeah,  they were very helpful while they were around. How often do you 
get a nice fold-out schematic of the hardware in the back of the manual 
these days :)

The thing is that when Commodore went down, the huge collection of 
software for the platform died with it, even if some of it was open 
source. If it had been an open-source OS, I'm sure it would have been 
ported to Mac or PC hardware even before Commodore folded, which also 
might have been an incentive for Commodore to keep ahead on the hardware 
front too.

Felix







--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 18:43, Benno wrote:
> On Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 18:08:40 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 17:01, Benno wrote:
> >> >>   b) Access to source code
> >> 
> >> Just to clarify my choice is b) not b2) I care *more* about reading code
> >> to find bugs, and being able to make my own modifications, but care less
> >> about distribution of any changes. (This is a matter of degrees of 
> >> course, the other is nice too, but not as important imho)
> >
> >Windows shared source:
> >read - tick
> >make (and implicitly use) your own changes - no tick.
> >
> 
> Don't underestimate the usefulness of being able to read
> source code.

You said that "I care *more* about reading code to find bugs, and being
able to make my own modifications, " To which, I replied with an example
where b) (not b2) only fulfilled one of the two things you listed as
caring about. MY assessment of the usefulness or not of reading source
code has *nothing* to do with my answer.

> Of course if you had proper documentation and no bugs
> it would be a non-issue.

This is in complete contradiction to your statement quoted above.

Whats up with that?

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 19:03, Felix Sheldon wrote:


> The thing is that when Commodore went down, the huge collection of 
> software for the platform died with it, even if some of it was open 
> source. If it had been an open-source OS, I'm sure it would have been 
> ported to Mac or PC hardware even before Commodore folded, which also 
> might have been an incentive for Commodore to keep ahead on the hardware 
> front too.

Point taken.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Jeff Waugh]

> > b2) Ability to freely read, modify and distribute source (+ binaries)
> > 
> > >   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom
> > 
> > (Just adding that one in.)
> 
> what do you see as the delta from b2 to c ?

Ideals vs. benefits, basically. Not to cause a ruckus about BSD vs. GPL, but
they do embody the ideals vs. benefits argument. BSD provides the benefits
(b2), the GPL codifies the ideals while also providing the benefits (c).

- Jeff

-- 
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norwayhttp://2004.guadec.org/
 
"... Of course, compared with Holly Valance, who has beams of light
 shooting from her nipples, it all seems rather quaint now." - Rove
   McManus on Olivia Newton-John
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 19:23, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
> > > b2) Ability to freely read, modify and distribute source (+ binaries)
> > > 
> > > >   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom
> > > 
> > > (Just adding that one in.)
> > 
> > what do you see as the delta from b2 to c ?
> 
> Ideals vs. benefits, basically. Not to cause a ruckus about BSD vs. GPL, but
> they do embody the ideals vs. benefits argument. BSD provides the benefits
> (b2), the GPL codifies the ideals while also providing the benefits (c).

It's kindof hard to avoid that particular ruckus. Not to be religious
about it, but I'd need /real/ serious arm twisting to put a BSD licence
on anything I write, or to contribute to a BSD licenced project. (In
both cases, for my own time, not paid contract time).

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Ken Foskey]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 16:57, Jeff Waugh wrote:

> b2) Ability to freely read, modify and distribute source (+ binaries)


This would be my hit I guess.

> >   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom

And this


Mine is a moral high ground.  My kids and everyone in the neighbourhood
can afford to buy software.  There are a lot of third world countries
that this cannot happen.  I really think we have a charitable
organisation that can provide the technical infrastructure to developing
countries.  I am sure that our old computers would be gladly received in
these countries (where there is power :-).  I seem to recall tetris was
written in Russia on a computer the same level as I had literally thrown
out a year earlier.  We really have to work out a way to move our old
technology to where it is needed.

Funny thing is that I give software away (in time) and it comes back to
me.  We have people from all around the world solving bugs for us.  If
you love something set it free.

I am also a realist.  If you want to make money off it go for your
life.  I as an Open Source developer offer a choice which you can take
up or leave.

I was thinking that GPL is more like Yokult(??) the good bacteria that
you take daily than a virus.  It is your choice whether you open the
bottle and take the medicine.  If you failed to read the label then you
deserve the side effects.

We really need to explain the GPL better.

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Jeff Waugh]

> It's kindof hard to avoid that particular ruckus. Not to be religious
> about it, but I'd need /real/ serious arm twisting to put a BSD licence on
> anything I write, or to contribute to a BSD licenced project. (In both
> cases, for my own time, not paid contract time).

But hey, if it advanced other projects or stuff that you were working on...
There are always dimensions to these things. (But I grok where you're coming
from.)

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/
 
   It makes perfect sense. If you're a narcissistic arsehole spawned from
a curdled gene pool.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Jeff Waugh]

> We really need to explain the GPL better.

Matthew Szulik (Red Hat CEO) had an interesting comment about this in a
speech last year: "The GPL means not having to trust each other." This
sounds pretty wrong in a developer context, but in a business collaboration
context (very high level benefits) it's just about spot on.

- Jeff

-- 
Come to gnome.conf.au 2004!   http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/2004/gnome.conf.au/
 
 "Is your sense of identity inextricably bound to a large prime?" -
   Michael Meeks
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 19:34, Jeff Waugh wrote:

> But hey, if it advanced other projects or stuff that you were working on...

These days, I'd be inclined to fork the BSD project to GPL status
(remember that it's a trapdoor) and hack on the now GPL project. I'd
then track the BSD changes via arch, and incorporate them into the GPL
version.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 19:41, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
> > We really need to explain the GPL better.
> 
> Matthew Szulik (Red Hat CEO) had an interesting comment about this in a
> speech last year: "The GPL means not having to trust each other." This
> sounds pretty wrong in a developer context, but in a business collaboration
> context (very high level benefits) it's just about spot on.

Hey, thats good - and I think it's right in a developer context too
(W.R.T. use of the code that is).

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 19:08:30 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 18:43, Benno wrote:
>> On Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 18:08:40 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>> >On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 17:01, Benno wrote:
>> >> >>   b) Access to source code
>> >> 
>> >> Just to clarify my choice is b) not b2) I care *more* about reading code
>> >> to find bugs, and being able to make my own modifications, but care less
>> >> about distribution of any changes. (This is a matter of degrees of 
>> >> course, the other is nice too, but not as important imho)
>> >
>> >Windows shared source:
>> >read - tick
>> >make (and implicitly use) your own changes - no tick.
>> >
>> 
>> Don't underestimate the usefulness of being able to read
>> source code.
>
>You said that "I care *more* about reading code to find bugs, and being
>able to make my own modifications, " To which, I replied with an example
>where b) (not b2) only fulfilled one of the two things you listed as
>caring about. MY assessment of the usefulness or not of reading source
>code has *nothing* to do with my answer.

Yes, sure, and I said replied saying how just being able to read the
source code is still useful, regardless of whether you can modify it
or not. Simply pointing out how I still find that useful, even if it
isn't *as* useful as having the code *and* being able to fix the bug
myself.

>> Of course if you had proper documentation and no bugs
>> it would be a non-issue.
>
>This is in complete contradiction to your statement quoted above.
>
>Whats up with that?

How is it in contradiction? If we had quality software which worked
as advertised, and never had bugs then reading the source code wouldn't
be needed.

Of course, this is not the case, and most products do have bugs. Which 
is why I like having the source and the ability to fix the bug.

Benno

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 19:45:34 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 19:34, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>> But hey, if it advanced other projects or stuff that you were working on...
>
>These days, I'd be inclined to fork the BSD project to GPL status
>(remember that it's a trapdoor) and hack on the now GPL project. I'd
>then track the BSD changes via arch, and incorporate them into the GPL
>version.

I really can't help myself, but isn't it great that the BSD developers
give you the *real* freedom to do this?

I release my code under BSD license because I want it used. I don't care
if that is in an open-source or closed-form product. Of course other people
have different views and release their code under GPL and that is their
choice.

Also I find the BSD *easy* to understand and the GPL very *hard* to
understand, but hey maybe, I'm just stupid. 

The part that particularly annoys me at the moment is the definition
of derivative work. So if anyone feels like clarifying just jump right
in. Its not a derivative work if you fork/exec something to interface 
with it, but if you dynamically link against it, it is. 

This seems so, well, arbitrary, and not pertaining to any logic that
I can understand. . Defining a derivative work in terms of 
address space/process boundaries just seems wrong to me.

Benno
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Jeff Waugh]

> The part that particularly annoys me at the moment is the definition of
> derivative work. So if anyone feels like clarifying just jump right in.
> Its not a derivative work if you fork/exec something to interface with it,
> but if you dynamically link against it, it is. 
> 
> This seems so, well, arbitrary, and not pertaining to any logic that I can
> understand. . Defining a derivative work in terms of address
> space/process boundaries just seems wrong to me.

Don't you read LWN or Groklaw? :-)

  http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031205135223118

Which links to this, for the impatient:

  "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
  such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
  fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
  reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work
  may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial
  revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a
  whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html

Totally working on US interpretation of copyright here, which isn't exactly
what everyone uses. Point being, the law is not arbitrary, and where it is,
it is clarified by lots of money and/or moral outrage.

There have been many astute discussions about this on lkml, particularly the
relationship between what is derived ("consisting of [...] modifications")
and what is an independent work that is merely technically connected. If you
link against readline, you are deriving. If you provide something for the
kernel to link to, and don't use any kernel code to do so (which is becoming
increasingly harder to do), you could very easily argue that you're not. It
has been easy to describe this with easily accessible technical ideas, but
it turns out that what makes it make sense isn't all that technical anyway.

[ My own perspective on this is that the GPL is law-as-art, deftly using
copyright and licensing law to grant powerful rights - freedoms - while
simultaneously encouraging a community of mutual beneficiaries who accept
the terms of involvement. The GPL 'forces' nothing. It's beautiful. But it's
not the only license on the planet either. ;-) ]

- Jeff

-- 
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norwayhttp://2004.guadec.org/
 
"Not to mention that there's simply no way to explain what a 'window
   manager' is without descending into 'PC Load Letter?!' technobabble."
 - Havoc Pennington
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Malcolm V]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 16:36, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Here's a question I've been asking a lot of people recently. Which do you
> care *more* about:
Is this the same question as:

Are you:
> 
>   a) An alternative to Windows

a) An (unsatisfied?) Windows user.

>   b) Access to source code

b) A software developer struggling with poorly documented programs/code
libraries.

b2) A commercial software developer.

>   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom

c) A free software developer.

Sure, there are some (plenty of?) people able to look beyond there own
patch of grass, but I would think the majority of answers would fall
within these lines. Also people can be all four at once, so their answer
will oscillate depending on the day of the month, pet hate of the hour,
etc.

Cheers,
Malcolm V.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Ken Foskey]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 23:46, Benno wrote:
> The part that particularly annoys me at the moment is the definition
> of derivative work. So if anyone feels like clarifying just jump right
> in. Its not a derivative work if you fork/exec something to interface 
> with it, but if you dynamically link against it, it is. 

LGPL appears to be the best of both worlds to me.

a)  I can use it at work, ie link with proprietary.

b)  I am "forced" to release my patches so that others benefit.

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Grant Parnell]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Jeff Waugh wrote:

> 
> 
> > But a lot of people, including a good portion of Linux users (maybe even
> > most) have no idea what Open Source means other some vague notion that it
> > can be $free to acquire and comes with source code. This can include not
> > Open Source software such as QMail, Windows, or Pine.
> 
> Here's a question I've been asking a lot of people recently. Which do you
> care *more* about:
> 
>   a) An alternative to Windows
> 
>   b) Access to source code
> 
>   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom
> 

Oooh! probably b) but c) is close behind.

Back around 1990 a friend & sysop (Jim Hirst - AKA JimZ, JimmyZ from Nova
96.9 FM) was shopping for a multi-line BBS system on DOS capable of
handling at least 16 modems (after tiring of running Arcadia BBS on a
Microbee). I think one was about $1500 for a system we knew well but
didn't come with source (TBBS). The other was about $2000 with source code
(MajorBBS).

After thinking a bit and checking out another system running it (Adam BBS
in Adelaide with 32 lines - www.adam.com.au, and Nemesis in Melbourne
(found from the PAMS list (Public Access Messaging System), anyone
remember that?) - STD calls at $0.40/min)  and well before 'Open Source'
but at a time Shareware was popular I advised Jim to fork out the $2000.00

A fellow user, Nick Zervos took on the job of maintaining the C code (and
became sysop) and there's no way it would have been still running until
just last December if there was no access to the source, yes that's about
12 years and let me tell you, by the end of it, the system looked almost
nothing like the original to the users. 

It's also meant that *some* stuff could be ported to Linux and indeed the
system has been mostly rewritten (by Nick again) for Linux (the old one
was DOS6.2) and is on the internet. - www.activebbs.org

 -- 
--
Electronic Hobbyist, Former Arcadia BBS nut, Occasional nudist, 
Linux Guru, SLUG/AUUG/Linux Australia member, Sydney Flashmobber,
BMX rider, Walker, Raver & rave music lover, Big kid that refuses
to grow up. I'd make a good family pet, take me home today!
Do people actually read these things?


-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 00:32:11 +1100, Ken Foskey wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 23:46, Benno wrote:
>> The part that particularly annoys me at the moment is the definition
>> of derivative work. So if anyone feels like clarifying just jump right
>> in. Its not a derivative work if you fork/exec something to interface 
>> with it, but if you dynamically link against it, it is. 
>
>LGPL appears to be the best of both worlds to me.
>
>a)  I can use it at work, ie link with proprietary.
>
>b)  I am "forced" to release my patches so that others benefit.

Yeah, I have no issues with the LGPL :).

Benno
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 00:12:46 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>> The part that particularly annoys me at the moment is the definition of
>> derivative work. So if anyone feels like clarifying just jump right in.
>> Its not a derivative work if you fork/exec something to interface with it,
>> but if you dynamically link against it, it is. 
>> 
>> This seems so, well, arbitrary, and not pertaining to any logic that I can
>> understand. . Defining a derivative work in terms of address
>> space/process boundaries just seems wrong to me.
>
>Don't you read LWN or Groklaw? :-)

No I read the GPL faq on gnu.org though :)

"""
What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal
question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a
proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec,
pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and
the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are
interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are
definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run
linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means
combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
communication mechanisms normally used between two separate
programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules
normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the
communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data
structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as
combined into a larger program.
"""

Hence my comment of defining license boundaries based on address
spaces :). THe reason I hate it is that if an evil proprietary
software company wants to make a program that runs on linux it
encourages them to use either
 a/ GPL their software (ok this is good..) or 
 b/ Use crappy software engineering techniques such as
 i/ fork-exec something to reuse its funcionality, which
  is a waste of resources.
 ii/ Reimplement library funcionality to avoid the GPL, which
  isn't good for the enduser anyway.

Some may argue that this is a good thing, I take the opinion
that it really isn't. It makes it harder for proprietary software
to be written for a linux system, which is imho a bad thing for
users.

>  http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031205135223118
>
>Which links to this, for the impatient:
>
>  "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
>  such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
>  fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
>  reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work
>  may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial
>  revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a
>  whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'."
>
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html
>
>Totally working on US interpretation of copyright here, which isn't exactly
>what everyone uses. Point being, the law is not arbitrary, and where it is,
>it is clarified by lots of money and/or moral outrage.

Ok, it does come down to legal interpretation, but I don't like the
legal interpretation presented on the FSF page :).

>There have been many astute discussions about this on lkml, particularly the
>relationship between what is derived ("consisting of [...] modifications")
>and what is an independent work that is merely technically connected. If you
>link against readline, you are deriving. If you provide something for the
>kernel to link to, and don't use any kernel code to do so (which is becoming
>increasingly harder to do), you could very easily argue that you're not. It
>has been easy to describe this with easily accessible technical ideas, but
>it turns out that what makes it make sense isn't all that technical anyway.

Technically I see very little difference between:
  linking binary a against binary b. (eg: static or dynamic linking or plugins)
  Calling binary b through a syscall. (eg: user program calling kernel)
  Calling binary b through some local IPC mechanism.
  Binary a doing b popen() and reading the result back.
  Binary a communicating with binary b over some transport layer.

To my mind either all of those make 'a' a derived work of 'b', or none
of them do.

Take windows DLL's as an example of why I think it is stupid. You can
have an in-process or out-of-process COM component. Now if your
program builds against the in-process one, it would (according the FSF
interpreation anyway, and maybe this isn't the best), be infected by
the GPL. However if it called the out-of-process one, it would not. 
And afaik there is more-or-less a run-time choice of which one you
communicate with. And if you don't like the m$ example there are other
GPLed systems that provide similar functionality. 

>[ My own perspective on this

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 08:38, Benno wrote:

> Take windows DLL's as an example of why I think it is stupid. You can
> have an in-process or out-of-process COM component. Now if your
> program builds against the in-process one, it would (according the FSF
> interpreation anyway, and maybe this isn't the best), be infected by
> the GPL. However if it called the out-of-process one, it would not. 
> And afaik there is more-or-less a run-time choice of which one you
> communicate with. And if you don't like the m$ example there are other
> GPLed systems that provide similar functionality. 

The MS example you give is flawed. You have to link - to specify the
library and routines to use - against the COM objects exported routines
whether or not the runtime loader puts it in your address space or not.

OOP COM objects are different to a fork/exec model in a couple of ways.
1) They still have a binary API, not a stdin/stdout API.
2) To a user of the system, the OOP COM object is hidden - it's not
directly visible or usable as a standalone entity.


I think I know what you are trying to say - that any
external-to-program-foo's-source API, if required for foo to work,
should make foo derived from that API, or none should.

And I agree - they ALL do, for the definition of that API, not for the
implementation. This matters:

libc on most every platform has an explicit licence on the headers
allowing use without restriction.

If you write a readline replacement - binary compatible - and you
provide your own headers, then the user can link against yours or
against the GNU one. If you provide C headers and a BSD stub that then
calls an external program via fork/exec - the derivation is in the C
headers.

And a program that has a trivial (too small to copyright) or
unrestricted use interface (as most command line interfaces are) won't
enforce anything on the derived work. That said, even if it did, ONLY
the portions of the work that directly use that interface specification
are derived, not the whole body.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 08:52:45 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 08:38, Benno wrote:
>
>> Take windows DLL's as an example of why I think it is stupid. You can
>> have an in-process or out-of-process COM component. Now if your
>> program builds against the in-process one, it would (according the FSF
>> interpreation anyway, and maybe this isn't the best), be infected by
>> the GPL. However if it called the out-of-process one, it would not. 
>> And afaik there is more-or-less a run-time choice of which one you
>> communicate with. And if you don't like the m$ example there are other
>> GPLed systems that provide similar functionality. 
>
>The MS example you give is flawed. You have to link - to specify the
>library and routines to use - against the COM objects exported routines
>whether or not the runtime loader puts it in your address space or not.

Ok, and that makes the program GPL or not? I'm reallly trying to
understand this but it just isn't clear to me.

>OOP COM objects are different to a fork/exec model in a couple of ways.
>1) They still have a binary API, not a stdin/stdout API.

Yes true, why does this matter?

>2) To a user of the system, the OOP COM object is hidden - it's not
>directly visible or usable as a standalone entity.

Yes true.

I think you are saying that this goes to making it a derived work, 
or covered by the GPL? If so does that mean I can't use any GPLed
CORBA components on a Linux system without also releasing under GPL?

>I think I know what you are trying to say - that any
>external-to-program-foo's-source API, if required for foo to work,
>should make foo derived from that API, or none should.
>
>And I agree - they ALL do, for the definition of that API, not for the
>implementation. This matters:
>
>libc on most every platform has an explicit licence on the headers
>allowing use without restriction.
>
>If you write a readline replacement - binary compatible - and you
>provide your own headers, then the user can link against yours or
>against the GNU one. If you provide C headers and a BSD stub that then
>calls an external program via fork/exec - the derivation is in the C
>headers.

Mmmm ok, this is somewhat strange. (to me at least). So, just going
back to the COM example for a moment (not that I use COM but the project
I'm working is COM-like, but people have heard of COM and haven't heard
of my project :).

So if I have a GPLed COM componet, which implements some standard 
interfaces -- i.e: I don't need any source code from it to link against
it, and I link against it, then it isn't a derived work regardless of
whether it is in-process or out-of-process?

I think I'm misunderstanding you, because if this is what you are saying,
then it has implications which are against stuff in the GPL FAQ.

>And a program that has a trivial (too small to copyright) or
>unrestricted use interface (as most command line interfaces are) won't
>enforce anything on the derived work. That said, even if it did, ONLY
>the portions of the work that directly use that interface specification
>are derived, not the whole body.

But surely the rest of the body of work is then derived from those portions
and hence must also be released under GPL?

Benno-confused-as-ever :(
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Christopher Vance]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:46:47PM +1100, Benno wrote:
The part that particularly annoys me at the moment is the definition
of derivative work. So if anyone feels like clarifying just jump right
in. Its not a derivative work if you fork/exec something to interface 
with it, but if you dynamically link against it, it is. 

This seems so, well, arbitrary, and not pertaining to any logic that
I can understand. . Defining a derivative work in terms of 
address space/process boundaries just seems wrong to me.
Some of us are paid to write commercial software.

One of our products, including kernel patches and kernel modules, was
first released on Compaq Tru64, and is also sold on Solaris.  A
related product is even sold on Microsoft.  But when we port our Unix
code to Linux, some people seem to think it gets to be a derived work
of the OS which isn't a derived work of Unix.
(For those who know the company or the product, this is new code,
written from scratch, with no sources derived from earlier products we
sold on other brand-name Unixes.)
The argument I've seen quoted about inlines in kernel headers
sprinkling generated GPL code through one's object files seems
spurious to me, being a coincidental consequence of choosing a
particular compiler.  (Some people use other compilers for free OS
kernels, you know.)  The C standard requires the behaviour of inlines
to be equivalent (modulo performance) to putting the generated code
elsewhere as if it weren't inline.
Using POSIX or C headers doesn't make your code a derived work of the
POSIX or C standards, so I fail to see why this should be different
for Linux.  Consider this scenario (as far as I know, this is entirely
fictional): somebody writes some really good documentation for certain
kernel interfaces of Linux (unlikely given the general standard of
Linux documentation); somebody else writes some headers defining these
interfaces, using only the document just generated.  Neither the
documentation nor these headers would be a derived work of the
original kernel headers, and the new headers are not a derived work of
the documentation, at least in terms of copyright law.  The document
and new kernel headers would therefore have whatever license the
authors chose to apply.  To avoid issues of "contamination", one would
probably arrange for the document writer not to participate in the
writing of the headers, and vice versa.  If the license chosen for the
new headers was not the GPL, somebody writing a Linux kernel module
against these new headers would have used no GPL code, and therefore
the module would not be GPL unless its author chose so.
Given the argument that one can get an equivalent result without using
GPL headers, I fail to see how the fact that the headers are GPL would
in itself contaminate the resulting code.  (Yes, I know that linking
GPL code into the same kernel module would contaminate the resulting
code anyway, but if one can avoid such linking, the issue is not so
clear.)
Before you get upset at me, I would probably agree that while the
previous two paragraphs may indicate a legal path, this is probably
contrary to Linus's expressed intention.  (Not everything legal is
moral; not everything moral is legal.  I prefer to satisfy both where
possible.)
In the BSD world, we have freedom to port our product in without
somebody's license attempting to restrict our use of our own original
code.  In my more exasperated moments (and speaking personally) I find
the GPL's restriction of rights to be just as offensive as SCO's
attempts to control IBM's distribution of stuff they (IBM) wrote.  I
do use GPL stuff, and comply with the license, but I wouldn't
particularly want to spend any time on fixing it.
Just as some of the more doctrinaire GPL anti-BSD people rewrite code
from scratch rather than contributing to existing BSD code, some of
the more doctrinaire BSD anti-GPL people do the same to avoid GPL
code, just so they can have their stuff under a freer license.  It's
all a bit silly, eh?
Back to the practical: for our Linux product, we are pushing code from
kernel to user space, modifying the gross structure of the whole thing
(changing from event driven to polling).  Yes, we are GPLing what's
left in the Linux kernel, but only after the significant IP is moved
to somewhere safe.
Just because we're doing this, doesn't mean we think it was always the
best way to do it - it could be we're just sick of arguing the point,
and have chosen to comply not just with the obvious and direct
interpretation of the GPL but with some of the less certain and more
arguable parts of the thing.
Oh yes, my personal choice is to run *BSD at home.  Trying to get
Fedora working at home recently (specifically for Planet CCRMA)
reminded me why it's only at work I run on Linux.
--
Christopher Vance
NOT speaking for anyone but himself (and not always then)
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 10:45:14 +1100, Christopher Vance wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:46:47PM +1100, Benno wrote:
>>The part that particularly annoys me at the moment is the definition
>>of derivative work. So if anyone feels like clarifying just jump right
>>in. Its not a derivative work if you fork/exec something to interface 
>>with it, but if you dynamically link against it, it is. 
>>
>>This seems so, well, arbitrary, and not pertaining to any logic that
>>I can understand. . Defining a derivative work in terms of 
>>address space/process boundaries just seems wrong to me.
>
>Some of us are paid to write commercial software.



>Back to the practical: for our Linux product, we are pushing code from
>kernel to user space, modifying the gross structure of the whole thing
>(changing from event driven to polling).  Yes, we are GPLing what's
>left in the Linux kernel, but only after the significant IP is moved
>to somewhere safe.
>

This is a good thing IMHO. It is much better for things to run at 
user level rather than in the kernel, so I guess one benefit of the
GPLed kernel is that it forces stuff out of the kernel... now if only
you could run device drivers out of the kernel we wouldn't have a problem
with binary only drivers

Benno
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Brad Kowalczyk]

Christopher Vance wrote:

Oh yes, my personal choice is to run *BSD at home.  Trying to get
Fedora working at home recently (specifically for Planet CCRMA)
reminded me why it's only at work I run on Linux.
I've been tinkering with the idea of giving FreeBSD a go on my home pc, 
but have a few Q's:
1. what is hardware compatibility like?
2. what is the install process like? (I don't really have time for a 
complex install process atm)
3. Can it be easily installed to dual boot with windows 
xp and is there software like WINE et al that will let me run 
some windows apps like photoshop and perhaps dreamweaver, fireworks and 
flash 2004 MX ?

cheers,
Brad


--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Jeff Waugh]

> Technically I see very little difference between:
>   linking binary a against binary b. (eg: static or dynamic linking or plugins)

But, to do so, have you had to modify/reuse code, thus making your library a
derivative in the eyes of copyright law? Whatever the FSF say, the copyright
law pretty strongly implies that a derivative is all about 'modification',
'editing', etc.

Consider my earlier example -> Epiphany is fundamentally a derived work of
Mozilla and GTK+, but how on earth could you argue that the Windows DLLs
that Totem uses (via wincodec or whatever it is) could be derivatives of
Totem? (This is why I think the GStreamer guys got their knickers in a knot
over LGPLing all their applications... Then again, writing a GStreamer
plugin seems to be complicatedish wrt code reuse. It needn't be, though.)

>   Calling binary b through a syscall. (eg: user program calling kernel)
>   Calling binary b through some local IPC mechanism.
>   Binary a doing b popen() and reading the result back.
>   Binary a communicating with binary b over some transport layer.

Most of the time, if code is required to employ the method of using these
interfaces, it is licensed in such a way that you can use it anywhere.

> To my mind either all of those make 'a' a derived work of 'b', or none
> of them do.

The first is quite different to the rest, in some cases. I hope I've
illustrated that well enough.

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/
 
 "Old timers will tell you what a pain unstable was during the new
testament transition." - Jon Corbet on Debian's KJV packages
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Mike MacCana]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 17:17, Alan L Tyree wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 16:36, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > But a lot of people, including a good portion of Linux users (maybe even
> > > most) have no idea what Open Source means other some vague notion that it
> > > can be $free to acquire and comes with source code. This can include not
> > > Open Source software such as QMail, Windows, or Pine.
> > 
> In the context of the ACT initiative (which is, I think, where this
> started):
> 
> d) open standards for the storage of public documents

Which is (personally) the only thing which needs legislation about.

And has nothing to do with Open Source (other than helping competition
which may improve things for OSS apps).

Mike\
-- 
Mike MacCana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Russell Davie]

I was thinking that GPL is more like Yokult(??) the good bacteria that
you take daily than a virus.  It is your choice whether you open the
bottle and take the medicine.  If you failed to read the label then you
deserve the side effects.
We really need to explain the GPL better.
 

I like the analogy to a living system

improved analogy:
Yakult is a package of live bacteria and food supply.
Yakult has bacteria that are good little workers producing a valuable 
end product: healthy GIT and immune system; like open source coders 
producing and refining software.

The Yakult bacteria are adversely effected by heat, antibiotics, stress, 
trauma.  Open source coder's efforts are negatively effected by 
restrictive legal and trade practices.  The air-conditioning and legal 
frameworks of BSD/GPL/etc protects Open Source coders against some these 
adverse effects. Hopefully.

The thoughtful designers of Yakult included a food supply for bacteria 
to enhance bacteria success.  What does this in open source land?  
maybe: Freedom of information exchange: eg open slug email lists
Open Source educational resources on community level
Funding

Both the protective measures and food supply have a particular bearing 
on survival of bacteria: with out them both, they die. 

maybe the same can be said for open source?

regards
Russell
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Matthew Davidson]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 04:36:51PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Here's a question I've been asking a lot of people recently. Which do you
> care *more* about:
> 
>   a) An alternative to Windows

If Windows was free software, I'd probably recommend it to people for 
use in fairly limited circumstances.  If security and reliability aren't 
an issue; if you don't want to do much with your computer; if you have 
some odd hardware.  It's a good gaming platform.

>   b) Access to source code

It's important that good hackers have access to the source code.  
Personally I find any non-trivial coding as pleasant as a trip to the 
dentist.

>   c) The ideal of continuing software freedom

I first read the preamble to the GPL in the mid 90's (yes, I'm a 
newbie).  It remains probably the most inspiring document I've ever 
read.  At the time I was despairing of ever finding anything worthwhile 
to do with my life, and just couldn't see how it was possible to pursue 
any vocation in an ethical manner.  

Now I'm a few months away from taking the plunge and committing to 
working with free software as my principle means of income.  If we were 
still in the dark ages of having to break the law, fiddle about with 
copy protection hacks and "shared" registry keys just to get our 
computers to work, it's very likely that I wouldn't even own a computer.

I agree with Larry Lessig that Richard Stallman is the most influential 
philosopher of our age.  Insert a sentence using any or all of the 
phrases "paradigm shift", "disruptive technology", and "tipping point" 
here.  Assuming we can overcome all the DMCA/DRM silliness, it's 
conceivable that the industry of monopoly ownership of "intellectual 
property" (which honest economists disparagingly call "rent-seeking") 
will collapse, and a thousand industries based around the free sharing 
of ideas will spring up.

How mind-blowingly cool is it that you can make an honest living out of 
sharing, and being a member of a community?

I care not a jot about that component of my operating system called 
"Linux", and hardly at all about making better software using an "open" 
development methodology.  The freedom is everything.  All the other good 
stuff is a conseqence of the freedom.

To paraphrase an irritating ad campaign:

* Money saved by buying a computer without proprietary software : One 
thousand dollars.

* Cost of having someone burn you a Debian CD set : Ten dollars.

* Freedom : Priceless.

Matthew.

--
0419 242 316 ... (02)9763 7923 ... http://www.sneaker.net.au/~mdavids
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html 
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Christopher Vance]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:24:50AM +1100, Brad Kowalczyk wrote:
I've been tinkering with the idea of giving FreeBSD a go on my home pc, 
but have a few Q's:
1. what is hardware compatibility like?
Sometimes not as bleeding edge as Linux.  If your hardware is new this
month, you might need to wait a couple of months for the software to
catch up.  (I had DMA problems with my new HD controller from SiS, but
they were rectified quite quickly on all the BSDs.)  Otherwise, no
problem.  I have sometimes run Linux binaries under emulation, but my
Java and OpenOffice are native.
2. what is the install process like? (I don't really have time for a 
complex install process atm)
Not as pretty as Red Hat or SuSE, nor as spartan as OpenBSD or NetBSD,
but still quite usable.  Text based, with curses windows.
3. Can it be easily installed to dual boot with windows 
xp and is there software like WINE et al that will let me run 
some windows apps like photoshop and perhaps dreamweaver, fireworks and 
flash 2004 MX ?
I have a relatively new machine which boots (in order of frequency)
Windows XP Home, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Fedora, NetBSD, and Plan 9.  Next
one to go in is Dragonfly, a FreeBSD fork.  For this machine I use
Ranish, but I also use grub with no problems, and have used lilo in
the past.  My server runs FreeBSD, and my firewall OpenBSD.  Given a
real Windows machine, I haven't investigated wine or vmware.  Sorry.
Each BSD has a base system, divided into a small number (<10) of
'distributions', such as 'bin' (or 'base') 'etc', 'misc', 'man',
'compiler'.  Beyond that, you can install thousands of 'packages'
(>8000 for FreeBSD), or compile them yourself from 'ports' (a slightly
bigger number, because some packages are not allowed to be distributed
in binary form, or on pay-for media).  On some of the BSDs, parts of X
are also distributions, while others have X as 'packages'.
(As an example, grep is part of the base system for all of the BSDs.
On some BSDs this is a GNU grep, while on others it's a BSD grep, with
a separate package available if you really wanted the GNU one.
Perl is part of the base on OpenBSD, is a package on NetBSD, and the
correct answer for FreeBSD depends whether you're talking -STABLE
(base) or -CURRENT (package).)
BSD-specific questions might better be sent to the BUGS list if
Sydney location is relevant, or to OS-specific lists if not.
http://www.bugs.au.freebsd.org
http://www.freebsd.org
--
Christopher Vance
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 11:35:53 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>> Technically I see very little difference between:
>>   linking binary a against binary b. (eg: static or dynamic linking or plugins)
>
>But, to do so, have you had to modify/reuse code, thus making your library a
>derivative in the eyes of copyright law? 


IMHO no you haven't. You link against a binary static library. The header
files describe the interface to that, in the same way a man page describes
the interface to a command line program. IMHO that definately isn't modifying
the code.

I'm still not sure what your pov. From what you and Rob have been saying it
seems that #include-ing a GPL header file makes your stuff GPL, but if I wrote
the header file from scratch and used it to link against a library I wouldn't 
need to make my stuff GPL?

>Whatever the FSF say, the copyright
>law pretty strongly implies that a derivative is all about 'modification',
>'editing', etc.

Ok, if this is the case it seems to me as though GPL == LGPL. Perhaps if this
is not the case you could explain why?

>Consider my earlier example -> Epiphany is fundamentally a derived work of
>Mozilla and GTK+, but how on earth could you argue that the Windows DLLs
>that Totem uses (via wincodec or whatever it is) could be derivatives of
>Totem? 

Umm, you couldn't.. I wasn't trying to suggest this. If that is what it
came across as I apologise for my confusing writing. My point is whether
Totem is a derivate of wincodec or whatever.

>(This is why I think the GStreamer guys got their knickers in a knot
>over LGPLing all their applications... Then again, writing a GStreamer
>plugin seems to be complicatedish wrt code reuse. It needn't be, though.)
>
>>   Calling binary b through a syscall. (eg: user program calling kernel)
>>   Calling binary b through some local IPC mechanism.
>>   Binary a doing b popen() and reading the result back.
>>   Binary a communicating with binary b over some transport layer.
>
>Most of the time, if code is required to employ the method of using these
>interfaces, it is licensed in such a way that you can use it anywhere.
>
>> To my mind either all of those make 'a' a derived work of 'b', or none
>> of them do.
>
>The first is quite different to the rest, in some cases. I hope I've
>illustrated that well enough.

I'm still not sure I understand. (I'm a programmer not a lawyer :)

So, the principle is, if I have to use some of the program/libraries
code to `link'[1] against it, then I must GPL my program.

But, if i didn't need any of their code, for example the interface was
externally defined, and I wrote my own header file, or some other way 
that didn't require their code, I don't need to GPL my program.

So... just working from this, if I write a plug-in for a GPL program,
that is I make my program provide a known interface, and I don't need
to use any of the orginal programs header to do this, then my plug-in
doesn't need to be GPLed? If this is what you are saying it seems to
contradict the GPL FAQ
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins).  The
important sentence here being "If the program dynamically links
plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data
structures, we believe they form a single program". 

I guess I'm trying to point out why I am confused about this, when the
FAQ says one thing, but what you are now telling me appears (at least
to me) to contradict the FAQ.

Benno

[1] Using link as a generic term, as in any kind of communication, not
link as in ld or dl_open.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Jeff Waugh]

> So... just working from this, if I write a plug-in for a GPL program,
> that is I make my program provide a known interface, and I don't need
> to use any of the orginal programs header to do this, then my plug-in
> doesn't need to be GPLed?

There is a strong argument to suggest this, yeah.

> If this is what you are saying it seems to contradict the GPL FAQ
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins).  The important
> sentence here being "If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they
> make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe
> they form a single program". 

> I guess I'm trying to point out why I am confused about this, when the FAQ
> says one thing, but what you are now telling me appears (at least to me)
> to contradict the FAQ.

What the FAQ doesn't talk about is how 'derivative work' would be regarded
in terms of copyright, being based purely on technicalities to do with
linking and such. The argument I'm making above (which I don't necessarily
agree or disagree with, or support, etc) is that linking itself doesn't
necessarily indicate a derivative work. It's all about 'modification' and
'editorialisation', 'translation', etc.

But... The GPL is a license, permits certain things, defines certain things,
and has its own relationship with copyright law. Don't take anything I've
said as true or meaningful (I really am just presenting arguments), ask your
lawyer, etc., etc.

- Jeff

-- 
Come to gnome.conf.au 2004!   http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/2004/gnome.conf.au/
 
Snow Crash was a terrible book: Superheroes wear their underpants on
   the outside, not for two weeks without changing them.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Felix Sheldon]

Christopher Vance wrote:

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:46:47PM +1100, Benno wrote:

The part that particularly annoys me at the moment is the definition
of derivative work. So if anyone feels like clarifying just jump right
in. Its not a derivative work if you fork/exec something to interface 
with it, but if you dynamically link against it, it is.
This seems so, well, arbitrary, and not pertaining to any logic that
I can understand. . Defining a derivative work in terms of 
address space/process boundaries just seems wrong to me.


Some of us are paid to write commercial software.


Me too.

One of our products, including kernel patches and kernel modules, was
first released on Compaq Tru64, and is also sold on Solaris.  A
related product is even sold on Microsoft.  But when we port our Unix
code to Linux, some people seem to think it gets to be a derived work
of the OS which isn't a derived work of Unix.
One difference here is that MS and other OSes are licensed on a 'use' 
basis. They don't care how integrated you stuff is, so long as you or 
your customer pay their OS license.

The 'payment' required under the GPL license is the contribution of more 
GPL code, but at the same time all use of GPL works is totally 
unrestricted. Unlike the proprietary OSes, or middleware, the original 
developers gain nothing from sales of operating systems or hardware or 
whatever. I think this is a good reason for GPL contributors to be quite 
harsh on enforcing the terms under which they actually do receive 
'payment'.

As a perhaps silly example, say some guys write a very good media player 
which links against the OS provided multimedia components, Microsoft 
says 'Great, another good app for our platform, that means more sales'.  
If someone writes a very good media player, linked against a GPL'd OS 
provided mutimedia component, the GPL developers should have a right to 
say "Great, another good app for our platform, that means more GPL code 
is available to us, and everyone else".

(For those who know the company or the product, this is new code,
written from scratch, with no sources derived from earlier products we
sold on other brand-name Unixes.)
I have no idea what it is btw.

The argument I've seen quoted about inlines in kernel headers
sprinkling generated GPL code through one's object files seems
spurious to me, being a coincidental consequence of choosing a
particular compiler.  (Some people use other compilers for free OS
kernels, you know.)  The C standard requires the behaviour of inlines
to be equivalent (modulo performance) to putting the generated code
elsewhere as if it weren't inline.
For a standard library, unless it was LGPL, it wouldn't matter where the 
inlines ended up, your code must also be GPL. I get the impression that 
binary kernel modules have been pretty much defined as 'runtime use' of 
the kernel, as an exception to the rule. Of course, once you start 
including GPL object code in your module, it's no longer just 'use', 
hence the inline concerns.

Using POSIX or C headers doesn't make your code a derived work of the
POSIX or C standards, so I fail to see why this should be different
for Linux.
Because Linux developers *want* it to be different, and they have a 
right to say what is allowed or not.

Consider this scenario (as far as I know, this is entirely
fictional): somebody writes some really good documentation for certain
kernel interfaces of Linux (unlikely given the general standard of
Linux documentation); somebody else writes some headers defining these
interfaces, using only the document just generated.  Neither the
documentation nor these headers would be a derived work of the
original kernel headers, and the new headers are not a derived work of
the documentation, at least in terms of copyright law.  The document
and new kernel headers would therefore have whatever license the
authors chose to apply.  To avoid issues of "contamination", one would
probably arrange for the document writer not to participate in the
writing of the headers, and vice versa.  If the license chosen for the
new headers was not the GPL, somebody writing a Linux kernel module
against these new headers would have used no GPL code, and therefore
the module would not be GPL unless its author chose so.
If I got someone to write a very detailed summary of a novel, and then 
'rewrote' it based on the summary, it would still be plagiarism, and a 
copywrite violation if I sold it.

Given the argument that one can get an equivalent result without using
GPL headers, I fail to see how the fact that the headers are GPL would
in itself contaminate the resulting code.  (Yes, I know that linking
GPL code into the same kernel module would contaminate the resulting
code anyway, but if one can avoid such linking, the issue is not so
clear.)
Headers are irrelevant, not every language uses them. It's the fact that 
you are linking at all, not the method.

Before you get upset at me, I would probably agree that while the

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 12:21:49 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>> So... just working from this, if I write a plug-in for a GPL program,
>> that is I make my program provide a known interface, and I don't need
>> to use any of the orginal programs header to do this, then my plug-in
>> doesn't need to be GPLed?
>
>There is a strong argument to suggest this, yeah.
>
>> If this is what you are saying it seems to contradict the GPL FAQ
>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins).  The important
>> sentence here being "If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they
>> make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe
>> they form a single program". 
>
>> I guess I'm trying to point out why I am confused about this, when the FAQ
>> says one thing, but what you are now telling me appears (at least to me)
>> to contradict the FAQ.
>
>What the FAQ doesn't talk about is how 'derivative work' would be regarded
>in terms of copyright, being based purely on technicalities to do with
>linking and such. The argument I'm making above (which I don't necessarily
>agree or disagree with, or support, etc) is that linking itself doesn't
>necessarily indicate a derivative work. It's all about 'modification' and
>'editorialisation', 'translation', etc.

And given this GPL is no stronger than the LGPL.

>But... The GPL is a license, permits certain things, defines certain things,
>and has its own relationship with copyright law. Don't take anything I've
>said as true or meaningful (I really am just presenting arguments), ask your
>lawyer, etc., etc.

Of course this is kind of my point, the license and its terms are confusing.

For anyone who isn't already poking their eyes out reading this stuff, I urge
you to take the GPL quiz!

http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi

(I got 7/9, and I'm still confused! I'm not even going to start to ask 
about scripting languages and interpreters :)

Benno
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Jeff Waugh]

> > What the FAQ doesn't talk about is how 'derivative work' would be
> > regarded in terms of copyright, being based purely on technicalities to
> > do with linking and such. The argument I'm making above (which I don't
> > necessarily agree or disagree with, or support, etc) is that linking
> > itself doesn't necessarily indicate a derivative work. It's all about
> > 'modification' and 'editorialisation', 'translation', etc.
> 
> And given this GPL is no stronger than the LGPL.

I think I provided enough context to ensure that this conclusion would be
seen as fundamentally wrong. I'm not saying that the GPL's power is reduced
across the board to that of the LGPL (which, in fact, contains a number of
extra things not described in the GPL)... I'm saying: IN SOME CASES linking
is not deriving (as one interpretation of copyright law might allow).

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/
 
  "A 'lame' server is a server that is SUPPOSED to be authoritative, but,
  when asked, says: 'Me? I know nothing, I'm from Madrid!'" - Ralf
Hildebrandt
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 12:48:39 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>> > What the FAQ doesn't talk about is how 'derivative work' would be
>> > regarded in terms of copyright, being based purely on technicalities to
>> > do with linking and such. The argument I'm making above (which I don't
>> > necessarily agree or disagree with, or support, etc) is that linking
>> > itself doesn't necessarily indicate a derivative work. It's all about
>> > 'modification' and 'editorialisation', 'translation', etc.
>> 
>> And given this GPL is no stronger than the LGPL.
>
>I think I provided enough context to ensure that this conclusion would be
>seen as fundamentally wrong. I'm not saying that the GPL's power is reduced
>across the board to that of the LGPL (which, in fact, contains a number of
>extra things not described in the GPL)... I'm saying: IN SOME CASES linking
>is not deriving (as one interpretation of copyright law might allow).

It would seem to be a derived work only upon compilation -- because up until
then you don't incorporate any of the other library. So couldn't
you distribute a proprietary software application, that uses a GPL library,
as source.

Your users could then compile the software for their own use, and then have
and use something that is derived from a GPL, but that isn't really relevant
unless they want to release that binary, which they wouldn't be allowed to
do under the terms of how you license the source code to them.

Benno

(This isn't because I want to release proprietary code, but more so I, 
and others, are aware of the potentional limitation of the license under
which much of my code is released.)
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 13:48, Benno wrote:
> Your users could then compile the software for their own use, and then have
> and use something that is derived from a GPL, but that isn't really relevant
> unless they want to release that binary, which they wouldn't be allowed to
> do under the terms of how you license the source code to them.

Yes, that is one of the loopholes.

Another common one attempted :

Foo <- GPL.
patch-for-foo <- proprietary

client builds their own.

This fails befcause patch-for-foo is a derivative as it's meaning is
completely dependent on the source for Foo.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 10:45, Christopher Vance wrote:
> Given the argument that one can get an equivalent result without using
> GPL headers, I fail to see how the fact that the headers are GPL would
> in itself contaminate the resulting code.  (Yes, I know that linking
> GPL code into the same kernel module would contaminate the resulting
> code anyway, but if one can avoid such linking, the issue is not so
> clear.)

Your argument is incomplete: you don't got the non-GPL headers by using
the GPL headers (header->code using them->headers to satisfy the code).
The 'code using them', IF released before the replacement headers where
created would be GPL-by-use-of-gpl-code.

Subsequent programs could indeed use the (presumably BSD released) clone
headers, without worry. In fact, this is what the open source NT driver
development kit for NT does - it's clean room, and public domain
knowledged combined to allow anyone to develop drivers.

> In the BSD world, we have freedom to port our product in without
> somebody's license attempting to restrict our use of our own original
> code.  In my more exasperated moments (and speaking personally) I find
> the GPL's restriction of rights to be just as offensive as SCO's
> attempts to control IBM's distribution of stuff they (IBM) wrote.  I
> do use GPL stuff, and comply with the license, but I wouldn't
> particularly want to spend any time on fixing it.

It's a choice thing - I acknowledge that. I don't contribute to BSD,
because I don't want someone leveraging my work in a proprietary
environment.

> Just as some of the more doctrinaire GPL anti-BSD people rewrite code
> from scratch rather than contributing to existing BSD code, some of
> the more doctrinaire BSD anti-GPL people do the same to avoid GPL
> code, just so they can have their stuff under a freer license.  It's
> all a bit silly, eh?

Not really. The BSD folk want a commons for proprietary product
developers to leverage. The GPL folk want a commons for anyone to
leverage. Folk in either camp that are convinced of the morality of
their position will spend time on it - happily.

> Back to the practical: for our Linux product, we are pushing code from
> kernel to user space, modifying the gross structure of the whole thing
> (changing from event driven to polling).  Yes, we are GPLing what's
> left in the Linux kernel, but only after the significant IP is moved
> to somewhere safe.

Right - so you are trading quality against IP leverage. So the folk that
use your product won't be able to perform their own bug fixes if you go
out of business, discontinue the product etc.

> Oh yes, my personal choice is to run *BSD at home.  Trying to get
> Fedora working at home recently (specifically for Planet CCRMA)
> reminded me why it's only at work I run on Linux.

Heh, I don't run Fedora either don't conflate RedHat with linux,
please.

Lastly, regarding the use of lib headers or Posix headers - they have
explicit copyright statements that exclude any restriction on programs
compiled against it - for example (from a freebsd box's unistd.h)

...
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the
 *documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
 * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
software
 *must display the following acknowledgement:
 *  This product includes software developed by the University of
 *  California, Berkeley and its contributors.
 * 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its
contributors
 *may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
software
 *without specific prior written permission.

Note the explicit mention of binary form: anything compiled that
included this is a redistribution in binary form.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 12:38, Benno wrote:
> For anyone who isn't already poking their eyes out reading this stuff, I urge
> you to take the GPL quiz!
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi
> 
> (I got 7/9, and I'm still confused! I'm not even going to start to ask 
> about scripting languages and interpreters :)

I got 3 wrong - and as one (patent impact) has a completely different
wording in the GPL, I suspect there might be a bug somewhere.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 11:35, Mike MacCana wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 17:17, Alan L Tyree wrote:
> > 
> > d) open standards for the storage of public documents
> 
> Which is (personally) the only thing which needs legislation about.
> 
> And has nothing to do with Open Source (other than helping competition
> which may improve things for OSS apps).

I agree that d) above is really important. I'll note that patent
unencumberance is also important: a number of 'open standards' are /not/
patent-free, and suffer as a result. (GIF and MP3 being ones that come
to mind).

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Rob B]

At 11:57 AM 12/12/2003, Christopher Vance made a rockin' answer to Brad 
Kowalczyk :


Mate, that was probably the best answer I have seen in a long time to a 
question like that ... well done :)

Cheers,
Rob
(Fellow multi-OS user)
--
Age before beauty; and pearls before swine.
This is random quote 205 of 1254.

Distance from the centre of the brewing universe
[15200.8 km (8207.8 mi), 262.8 deg](Apparent) Rennerian
Public Key fingerprint = 6219 33BD A37B 368D 29F5  19FB 945D C4D7 1F66 D9C5

--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Ken Foskey]

On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 17:58, Robert Collins wrote:

> Another common one attempted :
> 
> Foo <- GPL.
> patch-for-foo <- proprietary
> 
> client builds their own.

As I understand it this is perfectly legal.  THe GPL guarantees that
people you distribute your code to have source, not that you give it to
anyone else.

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 22:15, Ken Foskey wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 17:58, Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> > Another common one attempted :
> > 
> > Foo <- GPL.
> > patch-for-foo <- proprietary
> > 
> > client builds their own.
> 
> As I understand it this is perfectly legal.  THe GPL guarantees that
> people you distribute your code to have source, not that you give it to
> anyone else.

It also guarantees that their are no additional restrictions imposed on
the source.

the patch-for-foo is a derivative work (because it's based upon Foo),
and thus must be GPL'd if distributed as source or binary. If it's
GPL'd, then it cannot carry a 'do not distribute' clause or other such
clsoed source / proprietary tools - meaning it can't be made
proprietary.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 09:28, Benno wrote:
> On Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 08:52:45 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> >The MS example you give is flawed. You have to link - to specify the
> >library and routines to use - against the COM objects exported routines
> >whether or not the runtime loader puts it in your address space or not.
> 
> Ok, and that makes the program GPL or not? I'm reallly trying to
> understand this but it just isn't clear to me.

The inclusion of the import stubs (/headers / import library etc etc
etc) into your binary, IFF they are GPL'd, is what makes your code have
a GPL licence requirement.

> >OOP COM objects are different to a fork/exec model in a couple of ways.
> >1) They still have a binary API, not a stdin/stdout API.
> 
> Yes true, why does this matter?

To use a binary API, you must use a machine-written descriptor of the
interface - i.e. headers (copyrightable) or import libraries (not
copyrightable AFAIK, but use-only-under-a-licenceable)

> >2) To a user of the system, the OOP COM object is hidden - it's not
> >directly visible or usable as a standalone entity.
> 
> Yes true.
> 
> I think you are saying that this goes to making it a derived work, 
> or covered by the GPL? If so does that mean I can't use any GPLed
> CORBA components on a Linux system without also releasing under GPL?

I don't know enough CORBA to answer that. 

> >libc on most every platform has an explicit licence on the headers
> >allowing use without restriction.
> >
> >If you write a readline replacement - binary compatible - and you
> >provide your own headers, then the user can link against yours or
> >against the GNU one. If you provide C headers and a BSD stub that then
> >calls an external program via fork/exec - the derivation is in the C
> >headers.
> 
> Mmmm ok, this is somewhat strange. (to me at least). So, just going
> back to the COM example for a moment (not that I use COM but the project
> I'm working is COM-like, but people have heard of COM and haven't heard
> of my project :).
> 
> So if I have a GPLed COM componet, which implements some standard 
> interfaces -- i.e: I don't need any source code from it to link against
> it, and I link against it, then it isn't a derived work regardless of
> whether it is in-process or out-of-process?

IFF the interfaces are standard - if you can build code using those
interfaces on a machine with NO trace of the GPL component, and then run
it on a machine that happens to have the GPL component, then it isn't a
derived work no matter what as long as you ALWAYS build the binaries
you are distributing on the machine with NO trace of the GPL component.

> I think I'm misunderstanding you, because if this is what you are saying,
> then it has implications which are against stuff in the GPL FAQ.

Got a specific reference?

> >And a program that has a trivial (too small to copyright) or
> >unrestricted use interface (as most command line interfaces are) won't
> >enforce anything on the derived work. That said, even if it did, ONLY
> >the portions of the work that directly use that interface specification
> >are derived, not the whole body.
> 
> But surely the rest of the body of work is then derived from those portions
> and hence must also be released under GPL?

This gets into grey areas - seek advice from a copyright laywer.
Certainly, when I code stuff, I try to keep coupling as loose as
possible, which has the pleasant side effect that most of the code isn't
related to other parts of the program... so no, they'd not be derived
from those portions. 

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Brad Kowalczyk]

Thanks for the comprehensive answer Chris :-)

cheers,
Brad
Christopher Vance wrote:

On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:24:50AM +1100, Brad Kowalczyk wrote:

I've been tinkering with the idea of giving FreeBSD a go on my home 
pc, but have a few Q's:
1. what is hardware compatibility like?


Sometimes not as bleeding edge as Linux.  If your hardware is new this
month, you might need to wait a couple of months for the software to
catch up.  (I had DMA problems with my new HD controller from SiS, but
they were rectified quite quickly on all the BSDs.)  Otherwise, no
problem.  I have sometimes run Linux binaries under emulation, but my
Java and OpenOffice are native.
2. what is the install process like? (I don't really have time for a 
complex install process atm)


Not as pretty as Red Hat or SuSE, nor as spartan as OpenBSD or NetBSD,
but still quite usable.  Text based, with curses windows.
3. Can it be easily installed to dual boot with windows 
xp and is there software like WINE et al that will let me run 
some windows apps like photoshop and perhaps dreamweaver, fireworks 
and flash 2004 MX ?


I have a relatively new machine which boots (in order of frequency)
Windows XP Home, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Fedora, NetBSD, and Plan 9.  Next
one to go in is Dragonfly, a FreeBSD fork.  For this machine I use
Ranish, but I also use grub with no problems, and have used lilo in
the past.  My server runs FreeBSD, and my firewall OpenBSD.  Given a
real Windows machine, I haven't investigated wine or vmware.  Sorry.
Each BSD has a base system, divided into a small number (<10) of
'distributions', such as 'bin' (or 'base') 'etc', 'misc', 'man',
'compiler'.  Beyond that, you can install thousands of 'packages'
(>8000 for FreeBSD), or compile them yourself from 'ports' (a slightly
bigger number, because some packages are not allowed to be distributed
in binary form, or on pay-for media).  On some of the BSDs, parts of X
are also distributions, while others have X as 'packages'.
(As an example, grep is part of the base system for all of the BSDs.
On some BSDs this is a GNU grep, while on others it's a BSD grep, with
a separate package available if you really wanted the GNU one.
Perl is part of the base on OpenBSD, is a package on NetBSD, and the
correct answer for FreeBSD depends whether you're talking -STABLE
(base) or -CURRENT (package).)
BSD-specific questions might better be sent to the BUGS list if
Sydney location is relevant, or to OS-specific lists if not.
http://www.bugs.au.freebsd.org
http://www.freebsd.org


--

--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Bruce Badger]

On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 02:08, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 09:28, Benno wrote:
 
> > >2) To a user of the system, the OOP COM object is hidden - it's not
> > >directly visible or usable as a standalone entity.
> > 
> > Yes true.
> > 
> > I think you are saying that this goes to making it a derived work, 
> > or covered by the GPL? If so does that mean I can't use any GPLed
> > CORBA components on a Linux system without also releasing under GPL?
> 
> I don't know enough CORBA to answer that. 

It goes like this.

IDL (Interface Definition Language) defines CORBA interfaces.  IDL is
compiled to generate code in a specific language.  That code is in turn
compled using a native compiler to create the local CORBA artifacts used
interact with the CORBA objects.  Note that an IDL compiler produces
*source* code in another language, e.g. C, C++, Smalltalk.

So, as a client wanting to use a GPLed CORBA server, I'd grab the IDL
and compile it (in my case to Smalltalk classes).  I would then write
code to interact with the new classes generated by the IDL compiler. 
The generated classes would translate messages I send into IIOP packets
sent to the appropriate places (e.g. processes offering CORBA services).

I don't need to even see the code of the GPLed CORBA server to interact
with it.  I do need to *read* the IDL (well, the IDL compiler reads it)
in order to generate native (e.g. Smalltalk) code.

It seems to me then that the only issue might be how the IDL is
licensed.  So perhaps the way to use CORBA is to GPL your servers, and
put the IDL under BSD?  But perhaps even having the IDL under the GPL
would be OK in this case as the IDL itself is only ever read, and never
directly included in new software?

HTH

All the best,
Bruce

-- 
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 09:48, Bruce Badger wrote:

> It goes like this.
> 
> IDL (Interface Definition Language) defines CORBA interfaces.  IDL is
> compiled to generate code in a specific language.  That code is in turn
> compled using a native compiler to create the local CORBA artifacts used
> interact with the CORBA objects.  Note that an IDL compiler produces
> *source* code in another language, e.g. C, C++, Smalltalk.
> 
> So, as a client wanting to use a GPLed CORBA server, I'd grab the IDL
> and compile it (in my case to Smalltalk classes).  I would then write
> code to interact with the new classes generated by the IDL compiler. 
> The generated classes would translate messages I send into IIOP packets
> sent to the appropriate places (e.g. processes offering CORBA services).
> 
> I don't need to even see the code of the GPLed CORBA server to interact
> with it.  I do need to *read* the IDL (well, the IDL compiler reads it)
> in order to generate native (e.g. Smalltalk) code.
> 
> It seems to me then that the only issue might be how the IDL is
> licensed.  So perhaps the way to use CORBA is to GPL your servers, and
> put the IDL under BSD?  But perhaps even having the IDL under the GPL
> would be OK in this case as the IDL itself is only ever read, and never
> directly included in new software?

Hmm. So lets follow this:
IDL file (GPL licence)
 --> smalltalk source (derived work)
   --> 'linked' into your smalltalk program (making that a derived work
when taken as a whole). GPL requires releasing as GP.

IDL file (BSD licence)
  --> smalltalk source (derived work)
--> 'linked' into your smalltalk program (making that a derived work
when taken as a whole). BSD allows treating the derived work as
proprietary.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Bruce Badger]

On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 11:23, Robert Collins wrote:
> Hmm. So lets follow this:
> IDL file (GPL licence)
>  --> smalltalk source (derived work)
>--> 'linked' into your smalltalk program (making that a derived work
> when taken as a whole). GPL requires releasing as GP.
> 
> IDL file (BSD licence)
>   --> smalltalk source (derived work)
> --> 'linked' into your smalltalk program (making that a derived work
> when taken as a whole). BSD allows treating the derived work as
> proprietary.

Sounds about right to me.  Certainly if you change "Smalltalk" for "C"
and assume static linking then the GPLed IDL would appear to suck the
client app into being GPLed too.

Of course beyond the licensing of the IDL there is also the question of
the licensing of the IDL compiler and the ORB (the common part of the
CORBA library needed by the client app) and the impact this has on
things :-/

And, back to Smalltalk, there is a question in my mind about how the GPL
concept of "linking" applies to late-binding languages like Smalltalk. 
In our CORBA example, the generated code (the derived work) would not be
needed in the system until runtime, and then it could be loaded and used
on-the-fly, and even unloaded again - all from the Smalltalk runtime
environment.  Also one could use a completely different implementation
(but with a consistent interface) of the generated code without any
modification or recompilation being required for the client code - and
this could also be done at run-time.  Flipping between the two
implementations without having to restart the client app is also
possible.

So, what does "linked", in the GPL sense, mean for dynamically typed
late binding languages?

All the best,
Bruce
-- 
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Ben Donohue]

OK but there is one thing I don't understand.

GPL software that you modify as the base for something else also
becomes GPL. OK.
SCO claims that derivitave works are theirs in their licence.

So in the case of GPL code getting mixed up with SCO code - which
licence wins?
Ben

Robert Collins wrote:

  On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 22:15, Ken Foskey wrote:
  
  
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 17:58, Robert Collins wrote:



  Another common one attempted :

Foo <- GPL.
patch-for-foo <- proprietary

client builds their own.
  

As I understand it this is perfectly legal.  THe GPL guarantees that
people you distribute your code to have source, not that you give it to
anyone else.

  
  
It also guarantees that their are no additional restrictions imposed on
the source.

the patch-for-foo is a derivative work (because it's based upon Foo),
and thus must be GPL'd if distributed as source or binary. If it's
GPL'd, then it cannot carry a 'do not distribute' clause or other such
clsoed source / proprietary tools - meaning it can't be made
proprietary.

Rob
  



-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Ken Foskey]

INAL

On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 14:37, Ben Donohue wrote:

> GPL software that you modify as the base for something else also
> becomes GPL. OK.
> SCO claims that derivitave works are theirs in their licence.

They claim it was introduced without their knowledge.  I personally
accept this and Linux will have to clean up this contaminated code, if
it exists.  This was made without our knowledge so we have a right to
know and some time to repair the situation according to US law.

> So in the case of GPL code getting mixed up with SCO code - which
> licence wins?

If it was knowingly taken by the company and not given the rights of GPL
and we can prove it then they are in a lot of trouble.  If they made a
mistake then they must remove the code as soon as possible or GPL
"contaminates" their OS and the boundaries are where the linker stops. 
If it is LGPL code then this is fine however they must immediately
release their patches.

This really is a question for groklaw.net
  
-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Rick Welykochy]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Ken Foskey wrote:

> > So in the case of GPL code getting mixed up with SCO code - which
> > licence wins?
> 
> If it was knowingly taken by the company and not given the rights of GPL
> and we can prove it then they are in a lot of trouble.  If they made a
> mistake then they must remove the code as soon as possible or GPL
> "contaminates" their OS and the boundaries are where the linker stops. 
> If it is LGPL code then this is fine however they must immediately
> release their patches.
> 
> This really is a question for groklaw.net

And groklaw comes up with the goods:



  TIGRAN AIVAZIAN SAYS HIS SMP CONTRIBUTIONS TO LINUX KERNEL WHILE AT SCO WERE 
APPROVED BY HIS BOSS
  ~by Alex Roston

  One of the most interesting bodies of evidence in the SCO case is the work of Tigran 
Aivazian,
  a truly excellent programmer who's made some fantastic contributions to Linux. Mr. 
Aivazian
  worked for Old SCO before the Caldera purchase and then went on to work at VERITAS.
  Mr. Aivazian has been a kernel maintainer for several years in two separate areas, 
the
  BFS filesystem and INTEL P6 microcode update support as noted here. 
  ...
  Now let's go back to paragraph 114 of SCO's Amended Complaint. IBM is accused of 
giving Linux:
  "(a) scalability improvements,
   (b) performance measurement and improvements,
   (c) serviceability and error logging improvements,
   (d) NUMA scheduler and other scheduler improvements,
   (e) Linux PPC 32- and 64-bit support,
   (f) AIX Journaling File System,
   (g) enterprise volume management system to other Linux components,
   (h) clusters and cluster installation, including distributed lock
   manager and other lock management technologies,
   (i) threading,
   (j) general systems management functions, and
   (k) others." 
  Looking back at Tigran's work, we see that a SCO programmer is responsible for much 
of what
  SCO itself is complaining about. Aivazian has been responsible for the following:
(a) scalability improvement ...
(b) performance measurement and improvements ...
(c) serviceability and error logging improvement ...
  Once again, these are all "enterprise level" features, and Mr. Aivazian has been 
doing this
  work since at least 1998. Further, he did almost all the work we've seen here both 
before
  SCO was purchased by Caldera and before IBM began working on Linux. And he did it 
with
  authorization from his superiors at SCO.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

It appears that SCO has knowingly allowed Aivazian's code with their approval (heresay 
I know)
into the Linux source tree. If they attempt to remove that code and divest it of its 
GPL
status, it would appear that they will face a lot of trouble.

IIRC, SCO now has under three weeks to come up with the goods (i.e. exactly which code 
fragments
in Linux consitute a violation of the licence they hold on Unix software). The more 
one digs
into this mess, the more sees how much SCO is depending on luck and ignorance to win.

cheers
rickw


-
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services Pty Limited

I get mail; therefore I am
 -- Dilbert


-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Sat Dec 13, 2003 at 02:08:24 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 09:28, Benno wrote:
>> On Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 08:52:45 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>> >
>> >The MS example you give is flawed. You have to link - to specify the
>> >library and routines to use - against the COM objects exported routines
>> >whether or not the runtime loader puts it in your address space or not.
>> 
>> Ok, and that makes the program GPL or not? I'm reallly trying to
>> understand this but it just isn't clear to me.
>
>The inclusion of the import stubs (/headers / import library etc etc
>etc) into your binary, IFF they are GPL'd, is what makes your code have
>a GPL licence requirement.

Ok this is the best definition I've seen / heard. There is definately not
something so succinct on the gnu web pages.

>> >OOP COM objects are different to a fork/exec model in a couple of ways.
>> >1) They still have a binary API, not a stdin/stdout API.
>> 
>> Yes true, why does this matter?
>
>To use a binary API, you must use a machine-written descriptor of the
>interface - i.e. headers (copyrightable) or import libraries (not
>copyrightable AFAIK, but use-only-under-a-licenceable)

Hrmm. This could (hypothetically) be obtained in some other way
(reverse engineering), or may be freely available anyway (libc
headers), or specified formally elsewhere. In these cases you could
(legally) use a GPLed library, w/o GPLing your code. (Although this would be
against the spirit of the GPL -- but that isn't what the problem is, 
*I* wouldn't do it, but someone else migh.)

>> >2) To a user of the system, the OOP COM object is hidden - it's not
>> >directly visible or usable as a standalone entity.
>> 
>> Yes true.
>> 
>> I think you are saying that this goes to making it a derived work, 
>> or covered by the GPL? If so does that mean I can't use any GPLed
>> CORBA components on a Linux system without also releasing under GPL?
>
>I don't know enough CORBA to answer that. 
>
>> >libc on most every platform has an explicit licence on the headers
>> >allowing use without restriction.
>> >
>> >If you write a readline replacement - binary compatible - and you
>> >provide your own headers, then the user can link against yours or
>> >against the GNU one. If you provide C headers and a BSD stub that then
>> >calls an external program via fork/exec - the derivation is in the C
>> >headers.
>> 
>> Mmmm ok, this is somewhat strange. (to me at least). So, just going
>> back to the COM example for a moment (not that I use COM but the project
>> I'm working is COM-like, but people have heard of COM and haven't heard
>> of my project :).
>> 
>> So if I have a GPLed COM componet, which implements some standard 
>> interfaces -- i.e: I don't need any source code from it to link against
>> it, and I link against it, then it isn't a derived work regardless of
>> whether it is in-process or out-of-process?
>
>IFF the interfaces are standard - if you can build code using those
>interfaces on a machine with NO trace of the GPL component, and then run
>it on a machine that happens to have the GPL component, then it isn't a
>derived work no matter what as long as you ALWAYS build the binaries
>you are distributing on the machine with NO trace of the GPL component.
>
>> I think I'm misunderstanding you, because if this is what you are saying,
>> then it has implications which are against stuff in the GPL FAQ.
>
>Got a specific reference?

Ok, the bit in the GPL faq about plugins, which I think I posted elswhere,
and a I would look up now if it weren't for my browser being intolerably
slow. In either case I would think that a plug-in to a GPL programme would
only need to be GPLed if you required special headers from the GPLed programme.
Maybe this is not true, but most plug-in definition I see have a webpage which
says "implement a function called foo with some type sig", so doing that isn't
making a derived work, however by the FSF FAQ interpretation it would be.
(Since it is in the same address space.)

>> >And a program that has a trivial (too small to copyright) or
>> >unrestricted use interface (as most command line interfaces are) won't
>> >enforce anything on the derived work. That said, even if it did, ONLY
>> >the portions of the work that directly use that interface specification
>> >are derived, not the whole body.
>> 
>> But surely the rest of the body of work is then derived from those portions
>> and hence must also be released under GPL?
>
>This gets into grey areas - seek advice from a copyright laywer.

I'm not going through this because *I* want to get around the GPL, I'm going
through this to better understand the license.

>Certainly, when I code stuff, I try to keep coupling as loose as
>possible, which has the pleasant side effect that most of the code isn't
>related to other parts of the program... so no, they'd not be derived
>from those portions. 

I agree, my concern, or worry, is that maybe this would encourage you (well 
probab

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Sat Dec 13, 2003 at 13:50:00 +1100, Bruce Badger wrote:
>On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 11:23, Robert Collins wrote:
>> Hmm. So lets follow this:
>> IDL file (GPL licence)
>>  --> smalltalk source (derived work)
>>--> 'linked' into your smalltalk program (making that a derived work
>> when taken as a whole). GPL requires releasing as GP.
>> 
>> IDL file (BSD licence)
>>   --> smalltalk source (derived work)
>> --> 'linked' into your smalltalk program (making that a derived work
>> when taken as a whole). BSD allows treating the derived work as
>> proprietary.
>
>Sounds about right to me.  Certainly if you change "Smalltalk" for "C"
>and assume static linking then the GPLed IDL would appear to suck the
>client app into being GPLed too.
>
>Of course beyond the licensing of the IDL there is also the question of
>the licensing of the IDL compiler and the ORB (the common part of the
>CORBA library needed by the client app) and the impact this has on
>things :-/
>
>And, back to Smalltalk, there is a question in my mind about how the GPL
>concept of "linking" applies to late-binding languages like Smalltalk. 
>In our CORBA example, the generated code (the derived work) would not be
>needed in the system until runtime, and then it could be loaded and used
>on-the-fly, and even unloaded again - all from the Smalltalk runtime
>environment.  Also one could use a completely different implementation
>(but with a consistent interface) of the generated code without any
>modification or recompilation being required for the client code - and
>this could also be done at run-time.  Flipping between the two
>implementations without having to restart the client app is also
>possible.
>
>So, what does "linked", in the GPL sense, mean for dynamically typed
>late binding languages?

I didn't want to get into the intpretted language problems, because 
trying to understand one implication of the GPL is enough for me for
one lifetime^W week, the FSF FAQ does mention what the deal is
though.

Benno
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Benno]

On Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 18:09:18 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 10:45, Christopher Vance wrote:
>
>> Just as some of the more doctrinaire GPL anti-BSD people rewrite code
>> from scratch rather than contributing to existing BSD code, some of
>> the more doctrinaire BSD anti-GPL people do the same to avoid GPL
>> code, just so they can have their stuff under a freer license.  It's
>> all a bit silly, eh?
>
>Not really. The BSD folk want a commons for proprietary product
>developers to leverage. The GPL folk want a commons for anyone to
>leverage. 

Umm, I have to disagree here. The BSD folk want a commons for *anyone*
to leverage. The GPL folk want a commands for anyone exccept
propreitary product developers to leverage.[1]

>Folk in either camp that are convinced of the morality of
>their position will spend time on it - happily.

Totally agree with that though :)

Benno

[1] I guess the response is no, propreitary product developers are welcome
as long as they release under the GPL. In which case my reply is they are
no longer propreitary developers and hence my first point stands :)
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Ken Foskey]

On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 22:35, Benno wrote:

> Umm, I have to disagree here. The BSD folk want a commons for *anyone*
> to leverage. The GPL folk want a commands for anyone except
> proprietary product developers to leverage.[1]

OK let me flip this with a little story.  I am a corporation, I am
considering releasing my code to the FOSS community.  After some advice
I consider BSD to be the one true free license (my opinion shines
through) and release.  Company B my main competitor picks up the
application and adds some refinements.  Because they have a better
product they start getting my clients and my openness has cost me money.

I think that there are many reasons to release code this is why there
are many licenses.  I can see dual proprietary and Open Licensing
becoming more prevalent as business attempt to leverage the FOSS
movement.  Some will be a success and others will fall by the wayside,
as has always been the case in business and the FOSS community.  (Hands
up anyone that has worked on FOSS that did not really work and the
project died)

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

FOSS = Free / Open Source Software

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Robert Collins]

On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 22:35, Benno wrote:
> On Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 18:09:18 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >Not really. The BSD folk want a commons for proprietary product
> >developers to leverage. The GPL folk want a commons for anyone to
> >leverage. 
> 
> Umm, I have to disagree here. The BSD folk want a commons for *anyone*
> to leverage. The GPL folk want a commands for anyone exccept
> propreitary product developers to leverage.[1]
...
> [1] I guess the response is no, propreitary product developers are welcome
> as long as they release under the GPL. In which case my reply is they are
> no longer propreitary developers and hence my first point stands :)

Thats not the response I'd give (*). I'd say more : the BSD claim that
they want everyone to leverage their commons, but it's geared in such a
way that the commons size grows more slowly. (How much of Mac OS X is
available for the BSD common... quartz? itunes? cocoa?) How much of
Sun's new desktop product is available for the GPL common?

Rob

(*): I'd not Using the commons-as-property analogy, the GPL could be
paraphrased as - if you use the commons to grow oranges, everyone gets
the oranges, The BSD however is - if you use the commons to grow
oranges, its up to you whether you share the oranges out or not.  So I'd
agree if you where to say that 'the BSD folk want a small commons for
anyone to leverage, with emphasise on proprietary product being produced
in the common', and 'the GPL folk want a commons where anyone can
leverage, so long as they leave the commons in better condition than
when they arrived, and don't try to monopolise what the grew there.'
That is - I wouldn't agree that your rephrase was specific enough.

In either case, anyone can use the resources in the commons, but in one
case, there is no compulsion to keep it in the commons. And as Ken's
excellent example shows, the BSD can well be worse for proprietary
developers when they are the .contributors. - something the GPL happens
to prevent.

I do agree that a variety of licences may be needed to satisfy the
differing 'out there' - although I've yet to see anything other than the
aladdin licence-to-prevent-embedded-postscript-engines that really
justifies it's own existence (beyond the BSD and GPL).

-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Bruce Badger]

On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 23:32, Ken Foskey wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 22:35, Benno wrote:
> 
> > Umm, I have to disagree here. The BSD folk want a commons for *anyone*
> > to leverage. The GPL folk want a commands for anyone except
> > proprietary product developers to leverage.[1]
> 
> OK let me flip this with a little story.  I am a corporation, I am
> considering releasing my code to the FOSS community.  After some advice
> I consider BSD to be the one true free license (my opinion shines
> through) and release.  Company B my main competitor picks up the
> application and adds some refinements.  Because they have a better
> product they start getting my clients and my openness has cost me money.

The Ogg Vorbis people use both the GPL and BSD style licenses IIRC.

They use BSD style  license for the CODEC spec so that anyone can write
an implementation of the CODEC.  This is good for helpng the .ogg format
to be widely adopted.

They use GPL syle licenses for their code so that nobody can simply lift
their implementation of the CODEC and quietlly embed in it a proprietary
system.

To me this is an excellent example of using the strengths of each
license.  BSD to encourage widespread usage, GPL to keep implementations
free and open.
 
-- 
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.com


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Rick Welykochy]

On 15 Dec 2003, Bruce Badger wrote:

> The Ogg Vorbis people use both the GPL and BSD style licenses IIRC.
> 
> They use BSD style  license for the CODEC spec so that anyone can write
> an implementation of the CODEC.  This is good for helpng the .ogg format
> to be widely adopted.

This raises the question: if a specification is made available under
licence XYZ, do implementations of that specification automatically
fall undef licence XYZ as well? I would have thought not.

specification != implementation
standard  != implementation

The LHS is a patentable thing (a process or procedure) whereas
the RHS is a copyrightable thing (an expression or work).

But, IANAL!

BTW: reading over the court notes for the hearing where IBM has requested
(and won) a demand for SCO to produce the lines of code in the Linux kernel
which violate licencing, SCO's legal team made the point (which was not
argued but did not win points either) that the case involves three areas
of IP law: copyrights, patents and trade secrets. Three different statutes,
three different case histories, three different applications of law. A copy
of the hearing is published on groklaw. As one reads it, it becomes apparent
how complex IP issues really are, esp. in the realm of computer software.

[Aside: some of SCO's arguments are a bit more complex than portrayed in
the media. On the negative side, SCO might be able to demonstrate that
IBM included trade secrets in Linux that IBM was not allowed to pass on,
but on the positive side, SCO will have a very hard time untangling the
history and onwership of which bit of Unix code came from which source.]

Our ramblings and musings about BSD and the GPL and other licences are 
interesting but hardly reliable guidelines until tested in the courts.
This is why the SCO case will be so important: new case law will be established
and the GPL and computer IP law will be tested to the max.


cheers
rickw





-
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services Pty Limited

I get mail; therefore I am
 -- Dilbert


-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Ken Foskey]

Groklaw rules again.  It has a great article on the GPL.  I must admit I
did not understand it properly.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives

[Alan L Tyree]

On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 18:48, Ken Foskey wrote:
> 
> Groklaw rules again.  It has a great article on the GPL.  I must admit I
> did not understand it properly.
> 
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851
A very good article, thanks Ken. Although it refers to American law, I
think that it applies equally to Australian law.
Cheers,
Alan
> 
> -- 
> Thanks
> KenF
> OpenOffice.org developer
> 
> -- 
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
> More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
> 
-- 
--
Alan L Tyree
http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel: +61 2 4782 2670
Mobile: +61 405 084 990
Fax: +61 2 4782 7092
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

fedor and ccrma (Re: [SLUG] Freedom and Alternatives)

[mlh]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:45:14 +1100
Christopher Vance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh yes, my personal choice is to run *BSD at home.  Trying to get
> Fedora working at home recently (specifically for Planet CCRMA)
> reminded me why it's only at work I run on Linux.

I'm running Fedora, and about to go the CCRMA route;
surely there's no easier way?  Fedora must be (one of)
the of easiest OS's to install, and CCRMA uses apt,
so I'm genuinely interested in what your problems are/were.

Regards,
Matt
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug